The better thing for Hitler.
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
Do not expand the armed forces. Keep them small.
BUT
Let the Brandenburger teach the exterminators how to move unseen and unheard and unleash them.
At the same time try to build some big tanks like the Elephant or Ratte and show their models (including lots of spectacular failures of the engine, transmissions and guns! thats important).
While everybody is watching and laughing at your expense your extermination squads are busy.
And if a Reporter asks you about why so many small villages between Berlin and Warsaw or Berlin and Prague are empty, say "Maybe they moved to Warsaw/Prague" or "Maybe the Spanish Flu returned, what do I know? Since Versailles we Germans are ordered to stay on our side of the border. And we obey orders!"
BUT
Let the Brandenburger teach the exterminators how to move unseen and unheard and unleash them.
At the same time try to build some big tanks like the Elephant or Ratte and show their models (including lots of spectacular failures of the engine, transmissions and guns! thats important).
While everybody is watching and laughing at your expense your extermination squads are busy.
And if a Reporter asks you about why so many small villages between Berlin and Warsaw or Berlin and Prague are empty, say "Maybe they moved to Warsaw/Prague" or "Maybe the Spanish Flu returned, what do I know? Since Versailles we Germans are ordered to stay on our side of the border. And we obey orders!"
I don't know how norse proposes going about it, but I assume he means that Hitler is in a better position if the Germans try to finish off Britain before deciding to invade the Soviet Union.
It may be a bit of a stretch given that by summer 1941 it was quite plain Germany had no way of finishing the war with Britain. And this has probably been done to death on this forum long before I got here, so don't bother explaining it in detail if it has been, but with a lot of luck Hitler may be able to swing at least a truce with Britain and no war with the U.S. -- either declare a unilateral ceasefire after the end of the Battle of Britain, or attempt Sea Lion, lose, and THEN declare it. No British surrender is required.
Of course, if Germany is clearly no longer pursuing war with Britain and IS moving forces east, the likelihood that Stalin gets surprised by Barbarossa seems dramatically lower.
It also requires a very different philosophy on the part of the German leadership.
Tom Colten, your references, especially the one to John Gill has Won The Thread. Because it would indeed take some kind of intervention to change the thinking of the Nazi leadership. Oh Boy. (See what I did there?)
As to norse's view that Hitler should have "finished" the Battle of Britain (as opposed to it having been finished by the Luftwaffe being defeated, as is the consensus of many normal people) I'll assume he's looking at the Battle of Britain the way Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Called Wanda looked at Vietnam: "Vietnam was a tie!"
As to norse's view that Hitler should have "finished" the Battle of Britain (as opposed to it having been finished by the Luftwaffe being defeated, as is the consensus of many normal people) I'll assume he's looking at the Battle of Britain the way Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Called Wanda looked at Vietnam: "Vietnam was a tie!"
Last edited:
Well, both Gill and Hitler spent their last days in drug-addled hazes in their respective Fuehrerbunkers...
Well, never start a land war in Asia and all that - usually quite good advice. Im curious about how the Nazis succeed in making payments to the Soviets for raw materials as they do this - it was becoming a problem OTL as I recall. In addition, how will the Nazi's from the September 1940 point succeed in winning the Battle of Britain air campaign?
And as far as their respective Fuhererbunkers, drugs can be a great deal of fun, M. Colten.
Last edited:
ThePest179
Banned
And how does he do this? British air and naval power prevent him from an invasion, to put it simply, British land power in North Africa and the Middle East prevent him from taking over that area, and Stalin wants the money for all that grain and raw material.
Saphroneth
Banned
They were about a year behind on their payments.
And I'm fairly sure the only way the Nazis can win the Battle of Britain starting in September 1940 is... say... a meteorite strike on Castle Bromwich and all other fighter production plants.
(A more British asteroid would probably hit the Air Ministry building.)
Saphroneth
Banned
By History Channel Power! (The History Channel says the Nazis could have done it, and The Man In The High Castle was a good book, therefore it would have been easy. The Brits are only old men with pikes and broom handles, doncha know.)
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Oh, are we making joke responses? In that case:
The best thing for Hitler would be getting killed by a mountain goat.
Last edited:
Sulemain
Banned
Doesn't matter in the end. He'll piss off the Americans and then Berlin burns in a nuclear fire.
Oh, come now. Surely there's some point in 1940 when Germany is just one good river crossing away from invading England!
In serious response to norse (assuming norse is being serious), I just do not think either naval superiority or the conquest of Britain is a feasible goal for Hitler in 1940. I've tried to be charitable in assuming there is some non-military way of avoiding a two-front war -- maybe, for instance, Britain has no choice politically but to accept a Nazi unilateral ceasefire, Hitler doesn't declare war on the U.S., and there is no two-front war.
Norse's logic leads us to the conclusion that Sea Lion is a better idea than Barbarossa because, despite its negligible chances of success, it at least would eliminate the risk of a two-front war. From a presentist perspective, this is correct. Speaking as a historian, though, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that in Hitler's mind at the time, and not just for reasons of racist irrationality, attacking a catastrophically unprepared and dismally organized Red Army looked like a safer bet than intentionally towing a virtually unescorted flotilla of marginal landing craft into range of the world's largest navy.
Last edited:
I'm going to take you seriously. Because it's only fair to new members.
The truth is invading Britain wasn't going to happen, Nazi Germany didn't have the capacity to do so, at any point, nor would they ever have the power to project into the Atlantic against the USA. Also the time it would take to subdue Britain would give enough time for Stalin to reorganize the Red Army and then they would have been unstoppable. Once the Russian giant comes to life, she's all over. Arguably the Nazis took their best shot at the best time, following purges of the officer staff. If anything they should have ignored Britain (just keep Britain at arms length), ignored North Africa (there was nothing there that the Nazis really needed) and focused on the USSR and even then, their chances for success were slim and their window for victory tiny. Also once the USA gets in on the action it's only a matter of when, not if, Berlin falls. The only thing Nazi Germany could have had a better shot at was increasing the body count.
Last edited:
norse
Banned
what i meant is that hitler might as well achieve those things before he ever decides to attack hitler?
not really a expert on world war 2 but i thought the germans were not that far from finishing the raf if they had decided to destroy all the airfields like they originally planned instead of starting to bomb london and the major cities into dust.
without the raf would the luftwaffe be able to destroy the royal navy?
the heer was also a large well equipped force as far as i am aware. would it be that hard for them to land a large force on british soil without the raf and royal navy?
once britain is taken care of i doubt any other country in the area would be able to stop germany from forming a powerful navy. although i am sure that the united states and canada would form large and technologically advanced navies in turn.
not really a expert on world war 2 but i thought the germans were not that far from finishing the raf if they had decided to destroy all the airfields like they originally planned instead of starting to bomb london and the major cities into dust.
without the raf would the luftwaffe be able to destroy the royal navy?
the heer was also a large well equipped force as far as i am aware. would it be that hard for them to land a large force on british soil without the raf and royal navy?
once britain is taken care of i doubt any other country in the area would be able to stop germany from forming a powerful navy. although i am sure that the united states and canada would form large and technologically advanced navies in turn.
I think a interesting POD is sometime in Adolf Hitler's early life, giving him a easier childhood, preventing some events, maybe getting him into art school and a successful art career? this would not only prevent the Nazi's (as we know them), but would likely make Hitler no more racist then any other regular person of his time
The question of how the Germans might have mounted an invasion of the British Isles has been raised frequently on this forum, to the point that most of the veterans regard it as done to death. If you go back to the main page, you'll see that there's a "Glossary of Sea Lion Threads" pinned at the top. You could get lost in there if you wanted to.
To give you a brief rundown of the general consensus, though, the feeling is as follows (and others may chime in to say they disagree on one or more points, but I'm trying to give the view of the majority here without getting into too much detail):
-- Britain's relative position in 1940 may not have been as weak as we initially thought, partly due to incorrect estimates of air strength;
-- the Luftwaffe didn't demonstrate anything like the anti-shipping capability necessary to cripple the RN, or at least to do so very quickly;
-- the Germans do not have a serious surface force capable of preventing the RN from interdicting the invasion fleet;
-- and, reasoning from there, any serious intervention by the RN will rapidly result in the total dispersal and/or destruction of the invasion fleet.
All of that leaving aside the question of how well British forces would have stood up to the invaders on land.
So, yes, it would be better for the Germans to finish off Britain before invading the Soviet Union. But in 1940 and especially in 1941, the Germans probably don't really have a feasible means of doing so.
What the outcome would be I can't begin to imagine at the moment, but the only feasible alternative that gets you where you want to go is to posit that Hitler adopts some sort of peace moves following either Dunkirk or a Sea Lion-style catastrophe. Say, a unilateral ceasefire. Then, he may not have to worry too much about Britain, the Americans might not enter the European war (especially if Hitler doesn't declare war on them), and Hitler can concentrate on beating the Soviets.
As for how workable that option is I don't know. Presumably it has been discussed here too before, but I'm not sure where.
tenthring
Banned
1) Nazi economic planning was a disaster. The problem with most planned economies (and Nazi Germany was a highly planned economy) is that it can't respond to consumer demands. The only thing it can do is mass produce existing big ticket items (military arms being the most common). It's difficult for a planned economy to create new markets and products or build out a consumer goods sector.
2) By 1939 the German government is heavily in debt. That works in terms of getting some near term demand stimulus, but that Keynesian stuff tends to bite in the long run, especially if the debt was issued to pay for non-productive assets. They were using force to get their debt financed and they were headed for currency collapse.
3) The Nazi's couldn't stay in power forever. The public is fickle, how many times can they keep passing the enabling act, especially if the economy goes south. They need war for political purposes.
2) By 1939 the German government is heavily in debt. That works in terms of getting some near term demand stimulus, but that Keynesian stuff tends to bite in the long run, especially if the debt was issued to pay for non-productive assets. They were using force to get their debt financed and they were headed for currency collapse.
3) The Nazi's couldn't stay in power forever. The public is fickle, how many times can they keep passing the enabling act, especially if the economy goes south. They need war for political purposes.
Would it have been possible for Germany to have won the war if it was only against the Soviet Union? That way the economy could still have benefited from the war and as I doubt the UK/France/US would have helped Russia out (especially if Hitler changed Communists to be the main scapegoats of Nazism rather than Jews), they would have had a greater chance of winning.